Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I wish to begin by telling you that I am a bit taken aback by the type of remarks being made by the employers' representatives. However, in another way, I am not very surprised. I am surprised by the fact that you do not seem to have examined the information very carefully before making your comments. Most of you have already met with national representatives. I am referring to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose representatives appeared before us and made arguments similar to yours. We countered their arguments and that is why I am surprised that you are coming back with the same false arguments raised by representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
I am also surprised because many other employers' representatives have appeared and made certain comments. For example, the Canadian Bankers Association forecast a total catastrophe for the banking system, although less than 1% of its employees are unionized. This bill does not really affect them.
Representatives from the Canadian Railway Association also predicted a catastrophe. According to them, Canadian railways would all of a sudden cease to operate if this bill were to pass, but we all know very well that even if they wanted to hire replacement workers, they are unable to do so because railway workers are simply irreplaceable.
Representatives from the Canadian Airports Council also predicted a major disruption. A few years ago, there were strikes at Canadian airports, including the one in Quebec City. The strike lasted several months, and went unnoticed. It was not because people stopped travelling to Quebec—on the contrary, people go often. The reason is because under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code—Mr. Hattin, I believe you will want to take note of this—employees are prohibited from going on strike if there is a threat to public security. This is the case, for example, for workers in charge of defrosting aircraft wings.
On the other hand, there have been many examples given of businesses that are not subject to the Canada Labour Code. For example, Mr. Winter talked to us about the case of bakeries. What is the point of mentioning them? We know that bakeries are not governed by the Canada Labour Code and that they will not be subject to bill C-257 once it is adopted. In addition, Mr. Hattin also talked about packing businesses. I am not quite sure, but I am not under the impression that those businesses are subject to the Canada Labour Code either.
As well, representatives from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce talked to us about the famous section 94(2.4) and predicted a catastrophe, because bill C-257 would spell out the end of a business. I then set the record straight. I would be more than pleased to provide you with the same explanation, but I hope that those who will appear in the future will read today's transcripts, or if they are here in the room, those people will listen and not repeat the same thing. You can understand that I am a bit frustrated by having to constantly repeat the same things.
Sections 94(2.3) and 94(2.4) and the entirety of bill C-257 are identical to the provisions of the Quebec Labour Code, word for word. Sections 94(2.3) and 94(2.4) match section 109.3 of the Quebec Labour Code. Unfortunately, I cannot table a copy of this provision, because it is only in French, since it is a Quebec piece of legislation. Therefore, I will read the provision and our interpreters will translate. You can check for yourselves. The respective provisions are identical. Section 109.3 of the Quebec Labour Code therefore reads as follows:
The application of section 109.1 does not have the effect of preventing an employer from taking, if need be, the necessary measures to avoid the destruction or serious deterioration of his property. Such measures must exclusively be conservation measures and not measures designed to enable the continuation of the production of goods and services which section 109.1 would not permit otherwise.
I hope that I didn't read the passage too quickly and that the interpreter was able to translate properly, but this is exactly as it is written in the Quebec Labour Code. this section refers to a preceding section, just as section 94(2.4) refers to the preceding section 94(2.3).
Did you understand, or do I need to repeat it? Did you understand? Silence gives consent. I can therefore gather that you have understood that there will be no catastrophe and that a company subject to the Canada Labour Code will remain in a good position to keep operations running, even under the provisions of bill C-257, with the help of its managers and the managers in the branches that go on strike.
Bill C-257 would allow for all services to be grouped into one single branch, if several branches are on strike with the same union. This is exactly what has been going on for the last 30 years. Quebec has been operating this way since 1977, and it is now 2007. It has therefore been 30 years, and there has been no catastrophe.
Mr. Winter, you're not the only one to have made an error in jurisdiction. The Minister of Labour came before the committee and said that the outlook was horrible, because 911 services would be completely paralyzed if workers went on strike. 911 workers have been governed by the Quebec Labour Code for the last 30 years. There have been strikes, and services were not paralyzed because Quebec was able to invoke something else: essential services. Essential services as defined in the Canada Labour Code are quite similar to those set out in the Quebec Labour Code. The only difference, from my interpretation, is the creation of a council for essential services.
The council of essential services was not at all created in reaction to Quebec's anti-scab legislation. The council was set up in 1975 whereas the anti-scab law was enacted in 1977 following the demands of unionized public servants, particularly those working in health care. Union members wanted to be able to go on strike in a responsible fashion, and as such, asked for a law and regulations which would allow them to do so.
I must also say that health care services are just as important as banking, railway and airline services.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.